Western Pennsylvania (primarily incorporating what is now four
counties: Allegheny, Washington, Westmoreland, and Fayette) was a
sparsely settled frontier area throughout the Revolutionary
years. Settlers had been living there, some "squatting"
illegally, since about the 1760s, but true settlement had not occurred
until after the Revolution in the 1780s when conflicts with the Indians
were less frequent, having moved further west to
Ohio. Settlement of the area peaked in the 1790s.

I became interested in the history of this region when I began
researching my Marshall family line. In the midst of many of
the key historical events for the region was a man named James
Marshel. Although virtually every book regarding early
western Pennsylvania politics and the Whiskey Rebellion mentions him, I
have been unable to discover much about him personally or his
family. His life, however, was very interesting, wrapped up
as it is in many key historical events. I discovered James Marshel while
looking for information about a James Marshall in my family line. There may be a
connection between the two (possibly Marshel is a grandfather of Marshall), although
I have yet to find it. I found Marshel's life interesting, however, and
so decided to document it. (Also, if I ever discover a link between my Marshall
and this Marshel, I'll kick myself for NOT recording what I found!)
Below is some of what I have learned
about James Marshel, spliced with a large portion of western Pennsylvania
history.

As I currently don't have access to most of the primary sources, I have
had to rely on secondary sources and transcriptions. These
are less than ideal, so please use any information below as a guide
only (especially if it is only referenced from one source).
Unless I am quoting a book or a fact found in only one location, I do
not specify my sources; however, a
reference list is enclosed
at the bottom of the page. If you have more information,
please
contact me!

British Settlement & Wars

The effective British settlement of western Pennsylvania was in large
part delayed by its strategic location. Located at the
junction of several major rivers (the Ohio, Allegheny, Monongahela, and
Youghiogheny), the region was contested at various points by the
French, English, Indians, and Americans.

The Indian nations occupying the area in the mid to late 1700s included
the Six Nations Iroquois (a loose confederation of the Mohawks,
Oneidas, Onondagas, Senecas, Cayugas, and Tuscaroras) along the
northern border up along the Great Lakes mostly in what is now New
York. The Lenni Lenape (Delaware), Conestoga
(Susquehannocks), Conoys, and Shawnee were originally settled in
eastern and middle Pennsylvania, but with the increasing British
settlement were pushed further and further west throughout the
eighteenth century, mostly ending up along the Ohio River, straddling
the border of what is now Pennsylvania and Ohio, then into the southern
Ohio Valley and Missouri. The Mingo also occupied this
area. The Wyandot (Huron), Ottawa, Potawatomis, and Miami
were settled in what is now Ohio and Michigan, mostly in the Great
Lakes region (Dowd, 116). Each of these Indian nations had their own
distinct culture and their own claims to certain lands.
Alliances with other Indian nations, the French, and English shifted
constantly throughout the century, according to the best interests and
needs of the tribes. It is impossible to convey the details
of these interactions completely in a summary, so throughout this
essay, I typically refer to "Indians" generally if more than one nation
took part. I use the term "Indian" instead of "Native
American", as this seems to be the preferred term among today's
American Indians and historians. Please see the
reference
list for several texts that provide more detail on the Indian cultures,
wars, and migrations.

French traders had been sparsely settled over the region for many years
prior to the first British movements, and forts had been set up along
the Ohio River and Great Lakes. In fact, the region played a
central role in the beginning of the French and Indian War. It is the
location of George Washington's first military experience, the
surrender of Fort Necessity to the French in 1754. The
English lost another major battle in the area in 1755, under the
command of
General Edward Braddock, who was killed in the
assault. The English were expelled and the French maintained
control of the area until 1758, when General John Forbes successfully
drove the French from Fort DuQuesne and built Fort Pitt on its former
site (later to become Pittsburgh). This did not bring an end
to the conflict, however, as the French and their Indian allies
continued to attack settlements in the area until the end of the French
and Indian War with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. With this
treaty, the French agreed to cease hostilities in the area and ceded
the land to the British. During this time frame, much of the
frontier was abandoned by English settlers.

Conflicts with the Indians continued for many more years beyond the
French & Indian War. In fact, Pontiac's War broke out
in 1763 with the departure of the French, and was an extremely bloody
conflict. Indians had benefited from the battles between the
French and English over the area, as they were able to play one against
the other, decreasing the ability of either to achieve dominance in the
region and increasing the markets for trade. With the defeat
of the French, however, British colonization of western Pennsylvania
increased (despite a 1763 ban on British settlement, expressly designed
to decrease regional tension with the Indians). Hostilities
between the British settlers and Indians, especially the Lenni Lenape
(Delaware), Shawnee and Wyandot (Huron), continued without abatement in
the vicinity for the next twenty years, with full-scale wars breaking
out at several points during this time . Atrocities and
massacres were common on both sides, and the region was an extremely
hazardous place to live.

Officially, Indian lands were purchased by Pennsylvania from the Six
Nations Iroquois by treaties in 1768 and 1784. Several other
treaties were also arranged in this time period, purchasing land from
the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) and Wyandot (Huron) nations.
However, there was not general agreement regarding who controlled
the lands, and Shawnee tribes in particular were incensed by the
treaty with the Six Nations. All of the Indian nations had been forced to
repeatedly migrate from their homelands as both the French and English
settlers encroached upon them. The 1768 treaty with the Six Nations at Fort
Stanwix (by the British) was designed to keep settlements east of the
Appalachian mountains, and was primarily unsuccessful.

In 1777, several of the chiefs of the Six Nations wrote,

"To the
Virginians and Pennsylvanians now at Venango. You have
feloniously taken possession of a part of our country on the branches
of the Ohio, as well as the Susquehanna. To the latter we
have some time since sent you word to quit our lands, as we now do to
you, as we don't know we ever gave you liberty nor can we be easy in
our minds when there is an armed force at our very doors; nor do we
think you or anybody else would. Therefore, to use you with
more lenity than you have a right to expect, we now tell you in a
peaceful manner, to quit our lands wherever you have possessed
yourselves of them, immediately, or blame yourselves for whatever may
happen."(Hildreth 117)

As the colonies were in the midst of the Revolutionary War with England
at the time, national leaders tended to be as conciliatory as possible
during this time frame, so as not to start war on the frontier as
well. British forces, however, armed Indians in order to
fight against the Americans. While some nations took the
American side, others continued to fight for the British even beyond
the end of the Revolutionary War. Settlers in Pennsylvania
also committed murders and massacres that tended to spark renewed
conflict, and which frustrated the colonial military powers.

The second treaty with the Six Nations in 1784 (by the new American
government) expanded the region that was claimed for American use and
appears to have encompassed most of what is now western Pennsylvania,
as well as parts of Ohio. Although the treaties did not cease
hostilities, the combination of those and military action gradually
pushed the conflicts further west into Ohio, so that by the 1790s,
western Pennsylvania was a relatively safe location for American
settlement. The new American government began selling off
western lands at this point, as well, in part to pay down the
government's post-war debt.

Map of current Pennsylvania boundaries, showing overlap with Virginia boundaries
Map from
History of Washington County, Pennsylvania
by Boyd Crumrine

Throughout the 1760s and '70s what is now western Pennsylvania was in
fact claimed by both Virginia and Pennsylvania. The county of
Yohogania, Virginia was entirely in what is now Pennsylvania (see map).
Other Virginia counties also included lands now within Pennsylvania (to
complicate matters further, most of these former Virginia counties are
now in what is West Virginia). Settlers arrived from both
states holding titles to land, under conflicting systems.
Virginia land speculators (including George Washington) had heavily
invested in parcels of land in the area from about the 1750s and '60s,
while the region was still in conflict and such titles were of dubious
legality. Virginia lands were cheaper and easier to
obtain. However, lands purchased from Pennsylvania (the land
office opened in 1769, closed during the Revolution, and reopened in
1781) tended to be more legally secure, since they were based on the
treaties made with the Indians (Harper). Virginia and Pennsylvania
came to an agreement on paper in 1781, but the official surveying and
final agreements weren't completed until mid-decade, and disputes
regarding the land continued even longer. In 1781, when the
Pennsylvania land office reopened after the Revolutionary War, it
handled only cases that had begun before the war.
Pennsylvania owned the lands, but recognized at least 1200 landholders
who held Virginia deeds (Harper). Nonetheless, conflicts
about the subject remained for many more years within the territory
with some settlers refusing to recognize Pennsylvania's jurisdiction.

James Marshel appears to have arrived in western Pennsylvania in the
mid-1770s, making him among the earlier British settlers to arrive in
the vicinity. (According to Harper, in 1784, the population of
Washington County was just under 16,000.) Egle
states that James Marshel "was born February 20, 1753 in Lancaster
County. He moved to the western country some three years
before the Revolution and settled in what is now Cross Creek township,
Washington (then Westmoreland) county" (252).
Butterfield contradicts this, saying that although Marshel came to
Washington County from Lancaster County (specifically Dauphin), he was
actually born in the north of Ireland. Both documents,
however, concur on the date though neither gives a source. At
this time, I can find no evidence that Marshel served in the
Revolutionary War either for Pennsylvania or Virginia. If he
did, he may not have claimed a pension.

Although little to nothing can currently be said about Marshel's early
life, it is certain that he received some form of education, as he
regularly wrote letters in the course of his political business, many
of which are still in existence. Marshel may even have
attended college, as he was certainly an attorney. James
Marshel is described as "the wealthy lawyer David
Bradford['s]... business partner" (Hogeland 138). Harper notes
that Marshel "just misses" inclusion in the top decile of wealth for
the town of Washington, a category dominated by professional and
mercantile men. Marshel's taxable wealth, as measured in
1793, was £129 (103).

I know very little about James Marshel's family. Crumrine
notes that, "Col. Marshel's wife was his cousin, a sister of Robert and
John Marshall" and "Col. James
Marshel and his son John always spelled their surname in this peculiar
way - Marshel. The cousins of Col. Marshel, though of the same family,
spelled their name in the usual way - Marshall" (728). The cousins
mentioned in this note seem to have also settled in Cross
Creek. Butterfield notes that Marshel left five surviving
children at his death in 1829: "John, who settled in
Washington, Pa.; Robert, who settled in Ohio; a daughter, who married
Mr. McCluny; and two other daughters, who died unmarried at an advanced
age" (277).

Crumrine also notes:

"Col. James Marshel was a resident of
Cross Creek township as early as 1778. On December 26th of that year he
purchased of Jacob Frederick 'a tract of land situated on the
head-waters of Cross Creek, in the counties of Yohogania and Ohio, and
State of Virginia,' said tract containing four hundred acres with
allowance, and the consideration being £419 13s. 9d. 'Marshel
Hall' was the name given to a tract of four hundred and thirty-two
acres which was warranted and surveyed to Col. Marshel in 1785,
adjoining the lands of Thomas McKibbin, Robert, John, and Thomas
Marshall, and Samuel Johnston. The middle branch of Cross Creek runs
through this place. 'Mecklenburg' must have been Col. Marshel's next
land purchase. This tract he secured from Francis McKinne, to whom it
was warranted Feb. 13, 1786, and afterwards surveyed as containing four
hundred and one acres, located next to other lands of James Marshel and
those of David Vance and John Campbell. 'The Point' was a tract of
three hundred and fifty-eight acres which Col. Marshel warranted in
March, 1786, and then deeded part of it to Mr. Johnston, who lived upon
it" (728)

Marshel built a blockhouse on "Marshall's Delight" in Cross Creek,
possibly also using the fortification as a residence. Albert
says, "this was an important place of refuge, but was never attacked,
so far as known. It was built near a spring still in use."
(425) Sipe also mentions the fort and adds that it was built as early as 1774.

James Marshel was definitely in Washington County by 1779, when we begin
to hear about his religious life. He is
mentioned briefly in History of Washington County, PA, 1882
in reference to the establishment of the Presbyterian Church of Cross
Creek:

"In April 1779, the Rev. Joseph Smith, from York County, Pa., visited
this region and preached several sermons. These sermons greatly stirred
up the people to obtain the stated ministrations of the gospel among
them. In the early summer of 1779... the two companies met at the house
of James Marshel, midway between Buffalo and Cross Creek, and made out
a call for the Rev. Joseph Smith, who had been their minister in York
County. This call was dated June 21, 1779. The salary promised was
seventy-five pounds. This call was carried down to the Presbytery of
New Castle, then met at Carlisle, by Mr. Edgar, and was accepted on the
27th of October 1779" (736).

According to Butterfield, Marshel offered 200 acres of his land in
order to hire someone to bring the new minister from over the
mountains. From these mentions, we can infer that
Marshel was a staunch Presbyterian, probably one of the Presbyterians
of Scotch-Irish descent, who were numerous in the
region.

Dunaway remarks that the "Scotch-Irish
population of the county [Washington] became more noticeable about
1773 and thereafter increased steadily; it came mainly from the
Cumberland Valley and from other Scotch-Irish centers in Chester,
Lancaster, York, and Dauphin Counties, but was augmented by a goodly
number of immigrants coming directly from Ulster" (82). Other
histories also back this up. In his History of Washington
County, Forrest relates of Cross Creek: "this section was settled by
Presbyterians, of that God-fearing, hard-fighting type of men and women
who, with a Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other, carried
civilization into the Western wilderness. Of such stock
were... Col. James Marshel in 1778" (488). However, he
notes of Marshel, "it is said that he was not very pious in his later
years" (150). Dunaway cites freedom from religious
persecution and economic opportunities as the primary causes of
Scotch-Irish immigration to Pennsylvania during the colonial period.

Marshel is listed in the 1790 U.S. Census in Washington County (Ancestry.com).
It is possible that he was in Cross Creek at
this time, although he is also sometimes listed in Washington, Buffalo,
and Hopewell townships, all close to one another. His name is spelled Marshall, instead
of Marshel on this document. The return is loosely
alphabetized, so it is unclear who his neighbors were. In the
household were two males over the age of 16, three under the age of 16,
and three females. No slaves or free blacks lived in the
house. This is the only census in which I am relatively
certain of James Marshel's identity. In other census reports,
it is unclear which of several James Marshels he might be. It
is also possible that he was not the head of household after 1800, and
so is not enumerated. In 1800, he had likely moved to
Virginia, where the census has been lost.

1755 Map of Pennsylvania, west of the Susquehannah River
showing forts (stars), rivers, and mountains.
James Marshel settled near the Great Meadows to the far left of the map.
Map from
The frontier forts of western Pennsylvania by George Dallas Albert

James Marshel was involved in the civic life of Washington as well. In
the records of the first school, Crumrine notes that Col. James Marshel
was one of the first trustees. This school, Washington
Academy, would later become Washington College, and finally merge with
Jefferson College to become Washington & Jefferson College,
still in existence today.

James Marshel also apparently
loaned a fire engine to the town of Washington : "The first fire which
occurred in the town of Washington of which any account is obtained was
the burning of the log court-house in the winter of 1790-91. The
accounts of the commissioners of 1791 contain the following: "To pay
James Marshel for the use of his engine, $25." What kind of an engine
was owned by Col. Marshel, or for what purpose he obtained it, is not
known, as no further reference to it is found." (Crumrine)

Like other men of the era, James Marshel served in a variety of
political offices. In Westmoreland County, he was the captain
of the militia and was appointed a justice of the peace on June 11,
1777 (Egle). On April 2, 1781, days after the establishment of
Washington County, Pennsylvania, Marshel was commissioned as its county
lieutenant and one of the presiding justices (Ferguson).
Under the constitution of the United States, Marshel held the office of
register and recorder from April 4, 1781 to November 19,
1784 (Egle). Governor Mifflin reappointed him register and recorder
August 17, 1791 continuing in office to March 6, 1795 (through the
Whiskey Rebellion) (Egle.). In the mean time, he filled the position
of sheriff, from November 3, 1784 to November 21, 1787 (Egle).

According to Harper and Crumrine, although Marshel owned 1200 acres of
land in Cross Creek, he spent most of his time residing in Washington,
carrying out his political offices. He is mentioned in Crumrine several
times in the borough of Washington. He was the purchaser of the second
lot sold in the town:

"Col. James Marshel, a settler in Cross Creek
township, purchased lot No. 90 of David Hoge on a certificate,
receiving his deed from Mr. Hoge in February, 1785. This lot was where
Morgan & Hargreave’s store now stands. He sold it the
next year to Hugh Wilson. He lived in the town during the terms of the
various offices he held of county lieutenant, register, recorder, and
sheriff. In 1794 the military headquarters were upon the lot he then
lived on, and the United States forces were encamped on the college
grounds" (Crumrine 485).

As mentioned above, James Marshel served as county lieutenant and
colonel of the Washington County militia, beginning in 1781.
In this office, he held the highest local position of the
militia. Raymond Bell notes that in 1781, "Five battalions
were formed, each with 8 companies -- a total of nearly 3000 men were
enrolled. All able-bodied men between 18 and 53 were in this draft. The
battalions were headed by Lieutenant Colonels: Thomas Crooke, Henry
Enoch, John Marshall, George Vallandigham, David Williamson. Captains
were elected."

However, Washington County, Pennsylvania overlapped in boundaries with
Yohogania County, Virginia. This caused some difficulties when the
militia was to be called out to serve in the war against the Indians,
as some men would not report to a Virginia draft. James Marshel held
allegiance to Pennsylvania in this dispute, and may have actually
exploited the boundary dispute to avoid sending men on a military
mission away from home, when they were needed for defense more
locally: "There is a greater necessity for the service of the
Militia of this frontier County against the Immediate Enemies of the
Country, and it would have a greater tendency to promote our own
safety, than their best services with General Clark at Kaintucky
possibly Could do." (Downes 267-8)

In fact, Crumrine quotes Col. Pentecost of Yohogania County, Virginia
as saying of Col. Marshel:

"And he accordingly did all he could to
perplex the People, and advised them to pay no obedience to Draughts
that I had ordered for Gen’l Clark’s assistance,
& has actually offered Protection to some of ‘em,
though he before, on a Request of Gen’l Clark’s,
declared he could do nothing as an officer, wish’d well the
Expedition, & as a Private Person would give every assistance
to promote it” (97)

In response, Col. Marshel wrote to the
Council president (the executive branch of the Pennsylvania government was
a Council at the time):

“Washington County, 8th August, 1781.”

“Sr, – When I began to organize the Militia of this
County, I expected the line between the States would have been run (at
least by the Commissioners of this State) in May last; but Finding they
did not arrive at neither of the periods given us to expect them, I
thought it my duty to take the most favourable Opportunity that would
Offer to form the Militia. About the fifteenth of June last, I
apprehended Appearances favourable and accordingly advertised two
Battalion Elections, but soon found that General Clark’s
preparations for his Expedition and the Extraordinary Freedom with
which he and his party of the old Virginia Officers used with the
people of this County stood greatly in the way; they were Indefatigable
in propagating reports of the General being a Continental Officer,
having extraordinary Countenance and Authority from the State of
Pennsylvania, in pulling down my Advertisements, dissuading the people
from attending the Elections, crying out that I was everything that was
bad, and was doing all this to hurt the Expedition, &c.; all
which, however false, produced a Visible Indisposition in the people
towards attending the Elections; and altho’ I was not
attempting anything with design to Injure his Expedition, I could not
do anything to fill up the General’s troops out of the
Militia of this frontier County, not having Council’s orders
for that purpose. . . . I can only say at present I have acted such a
part as I thought a faithful Officer ought to do in similar cases; and
that I Ever Conceived I had no right so much as to say any of the
people of this County had a right to go with general Clark without your
Excellency’s Orders for that purpose; much less that I should
ly still on purpose that the Virginia Officers should draft the Militia
of this County for that service. If any complaint of what kind soever
should be lodged against me, I hope your Excellency will favour me with
a Coppy thereof, that I may have an Opportunity of doing myself
Justice; and as the Manner in which the Genl and his Underlings have
treated the people of this and Westmoreland Counties has been so
arbitrary and unprecedented, I think it my duty to inform your
Excellency the particulars of a few facts. The first instance was with
one John Harden, in Westmoreland, who, with a number of others, refused
to be drafted under the government of Virginia, alleging they were
undoubtedly in Pennsylvania, and declared if that government ordered a
draft they would obey cheerfully, and accordingly elected their
officers and made returns thereof to Col. Cook. After this the general,
with a party of forty or fifty horsemen, came to Harden’s in
quest of him to hang him, as the general himself declared; but not
finding the old gentleman took and tied his son, broke open his mill,
fed away and destroyed upwards of one hundred and fifty bushels of
wheat, rye, and corn, killed his sheep and hogs, and lived away at Mr.
Harden’s expense in that manner for two or three days;
declared his estate forfeited, but graciously gave it to his wife;
formed an article in which he bound all the inhabitants he could lay
hands on or by any means prevail upon to come in to him; under the
penalty of ten months in the regular army, not to oppose the draft.
Another man in Westmoreland, being in Company with Clark’s
troops, happened to say the draft was Illegal, upon which he was
Immediately Confined, and Ordered to be hanged by the General. Col.
Penticost, being willing to assist the General, issued Orders to the
Commanding officers of the old Militia Companys, to Raise an armed
force and Collect the Delinqts; and altho these orders were Chiefly
disobeyed, yet there has been several armed Banditties in the County
under command of a certain Col. Cox and others, who have acted nearly
in the same manner as the general himself has done.”

“They being in Quest of John Douglas (a Gent. Elected one of
our Justices for this County) and not finding him the first attempt,
broke open his house in the night time, Fed away and destroyed such a
part of Rye and Corn (his property) as they thought proper; Drew their
swords upon his wife and Children in order to make them Discover where
he was; the sd Cox and his party have taken and confined a Considerable
number of the Inhabitants of this County, amongst which were Hugh Scott
(one of the acting trustees of the County), altho’ he was not
drafted; in a word the Instances of high treason against the State are
too many to be Enumerated, therefore shall not trouble your Excellency
any more on the subject at present” (Crumrine 97)

President Reed replied that he was well aware of the draft, that it was
ordered by Washington, and that it was intended to include Westmoreland
and Washington Counties. He added that although he disapproved of the
methods used by General Clark, yet he hoped that the draft would be
successful. He felt that perhaps some of the settlers were "avail[ing]
themselves of a pretense" in order to avoid the draft.

In March 1782, a collection of men from western Pennsylvania entered a
peaceful Indian village at Gnadhutten on the Muskigum, took prisoners,
and killed approximately 90-96 Indians, including women and children,
all of whom had surrendered. It is unclear whether the men
believed that the Moravian Indians were in league with others who had
recently attacked and killed western Pennsylvania settlers. Certainly,
in accounts given later, the settlers claimed that they found evidence
of collaboration in the hostilities. Marshel, as a ranking officer,
almost certainly knew in advance
about the planned massacre and that this was an official militia
expedition. Crumrine attributes the calling out of
the militia to Col. Marshel, authority he had in an emergency. Crumrine
also notes that there would have been enough volunteers to go without a
draft, but that Marshel wrote to General Irvine that he was "heartily
tired out with volunteer plans" (Crumrine 102). There is not
evidence of his further participation in the massacre, which was led by
David Williamson, another colonel.

Later that same month and into April, Marshel apparently tried to raise
the militia to go with General Crawford and fight Indians who were
raiding and attacking the western counties (probably partially in
retaliation for the Gnadhutten massacre). Crawford was
defeated in a particularly brutal battle at Sandusky, and he was
tortured to death. Dr. Knight, a witness and prisoner, wrote
of Marshel's participation: "In consequence of these
predatory invasions, the principal officers of the above mentioned
counties, namely Colonels Williamson and Marshall, tried everything in
their power to set on foot an expedition against the Wyandot which they
could effect no other way than by giving all possible encouragement to
volunteers." (Montgomery 363) Marshel was
apparently having difficulty raising enough men to fight in the ongoing
battles, as he had to offer considerable inducement to potential
soldiers, including the opportunity to keep plunder found in the Indian
villages.

Marshel, however, also did not go on this expedition. Forrest
notes,

"although [Marshel was] not a member of Crawford's expedition,
took a prominent part in its organization, and in the Indian
wars. His reason for not participating in the campaign was
that he would not accept a position lower than third in
command. He was a candidate for first major at the election
of field officers at Mingo Bottom, but was defeated by Thomas Gaddis of
Westmoreland County. Marshel then refused to go and returned
home." (212).

In November 1787, Marshel wrote to President Benjamin Franklin (then
president of the Supreme Executive Council for Pennsylvania) of various
families who had recently been killed by the Indians. He
stated:

"we are at present in a very bad situation for Defence, and our
Circumstances in general, more Especially that of the frontier
Inhabitants, is such that very few are able purchase even a Small
Quantity of Ammunition..." (Hazard 210).

Marshel recommended that at least
one hundred troops be sent to defend the frontier, as it would take at
least that many simply to stand guard at one per mile. He
continues,

"I well know the circumstances of the people on the frontier
and that however well disposed they may be to support the Government as
well as preserve their property, yet I am assured that without the
special aid of Government, a very Considerable part of Washington
County will be Evacuated, should the Indians make incursions on our, or
the neighboring frontiers next spring" (Hazard 210).

As late as February 1791, Col. Marshel wrote to Governor Mifflin for
assistance in defending the western Pennsylvania frontier from the
Shawnee:

"From the fullest evidence of the hostile intentions of the Indians, I
have no doubt but that the service of our Militia will be necessary the
ensuing Summer; our situation on the frontier at this time is truly
alarming; the late Expedition under the command of Gen'l Harmar has had
a very different effect from what was expected; the Indians appear
elated with their success on that occasion, and are roused by a Spirit
of Resentment. It is evident that nothing prevents their
crossing the Ohio River, but the inclemency of the Season, and the
danger attending their Retreat by the Running of the Ice.
They have, subsequent to the Excursion in the depth of Winter,
committed frequent murders on the west side of the River, and had the
Insolence, after killing a family a few days ago on the bank of the
River, to call to the people to, 'come over and bury their dead, that
it would be their turn next, and that they would not leave a Smoking
Chimney on this side the Alliganey Mountains..." (Linn 538).

Antifederalism

James Marshel served as representative from Washington County in the
state convention that ratified the Constitution. Hugh Henry
Brackenridge, one of the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion, later
wrote a history of the rebellion in which he describes his relationship
with James Marshel, including Marshel's early history in Washington
County and his opinions of the Constitution at the time of its
ratification:

"James Marshall was a man for whom I had all along entertained
respect. When I came to this country in the year 1781, a
strong party existed in favor of the establishment of a new state
comprehending the [western] Pennsylvania and Virginia
counties. Marshall was county lieutenant in Washington and
had exerted himself greatly in opposition to this measure. I
was with him in all endeavors to compose the country and establish the
Pennsylvania jurisdiction. This produced an
intimacy. After his lieutenancy he was sheriff of the county
and discharged this office with general approbation from the court, the
bar and the country. During my political debates with Findley
and others, he leaned in my favor to a certain extent, I had believed
from personal engagements. When a member of the convention
for the purpose of adopting the Federal Constitution, he was the most
moderate of all the Antifederalists and refused to sign the Protest, as
reasons were alledged in it which did not weigh with him. I
had flattered myself with thinking that my opinion and representations
in favor of the Constitution had contributed to make him moderate; for
he is naturally a democrat, perhaps in the extreme" (Brackenridge 68).

Like most of the delegates from the western counties of Pennsylvania,
Marshel voted against the ratification of the Constitution.
The votes for the western counties were seven to two against
ratification; nonetheless, the vote passed forty-six to twenty-three
(Ferguson 90). Ferguson contends that this vote ratio was
probably an accurate sentiment of the backcountry feelings toward the
Constitution. Most of the western population was
anti-federalist at the time, although Washington and Pittsburgh (the
two seats of larger manufacturing) were exceptions.

Despite James Marshel's vote against the Constitution, however, he did
not sign the Protest letter that Brackenridge mentions, and which was
signed by many of the other western delegates. In this
letter, the delegates criticized the Constitution for giving the
federal government too many powers at the expense of the state and
claimed that only a "despotic power" could govern a country as large as
the United States (Ferguson 91). These feelings would come
to a head several years later in the Whiskey Rebellion.
Marshel also opposed a petition initiated by John Nicholson, state
comptroller general, in which Nicholson tried to reverse Pennsylvania's
ratification. Marshel wrote to Nicholson that he doubted
"that a petition would be very generally signed," and that "I feel
inclined to wait... for it may be that I shall be obliged to live under
it [the Constitution]" (Boyd 75).

Marshel did, however, participate in a follow-up meeting in Harrisburg
in 1788 with other anti-federalists after the ratification of the
Constitution. The organizers were "inviting to a conference
such of the citizens of this state who conceive that a revision of the
federal system, lately proposed for the government of these United
States, is necessary" (Elliot). In this meeting, a
number of concerns were raised, although the participants agreed that
"it be recommended to the people of this state to acquiesce in the
organization of the said government; but, although we thus accord in
its organization, we by no means lose sight of the grand object of
obtaining very considerable amendments and alterations, which we
consider essential to preserve the peace and harmony of the Union, and
those invaluable privileges for which so much blood and treasure have
been recently expended" (Elliot). Accordingly, a petition
with amendments to the document was proposed. Some of these
amendments were similar to those later adopted in the Bill of Rights,
although no direct line of origin can be drawn (Ferguson
99). The recommended amendments were as follows:

" I. That Congress shall not exercise any powers whatever, but such as
are expressly given to that body by the Constitution of the United
States; nor shall any authority, power, or jurisdiction, be assumed or
exercised by the executive or judiciary departments of the Union, under
color or pretence of construction or fiction; but all the rights of
sovereignty, which are not by the said Constitution expressly and
plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with, and
shall be exercised by, the several states in the Union, according to
their respective Constitutions; and that every reserve of the rights of
individuals, made by the several constitutions of the states in the
Union, to the citizens and inhabitants of each state respectively,
shall remain inviolate, except so far as they are expressly and
manifestly yielded or narrowed by the national Constitution.

Article 1, section 2, paragraph 3.

II. That the number of representatives be, for the present one for
every twenty thousand inhabitants, according to the present estimated
numbers in the several states, and continue in that proportion until
the whole number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; and
then to be so proportioned and modified as not to exceed that number,
until the proportion of one representative for every thirty thousand
inhabitants shall amount to the said number of two hundred.

Section 3. III. That senators, though chosen for six years, shall be
liable to be recalled, or superseded by other appointments, by the
respective legislatures of the states, at any time.

Section 4. IV. That Congress shall not have power to make or alter
regulations concerning the time, place, and manner of electing senators
and representatives, except in case of neglect or refusal by the state
to make regulations for the purpose; and then only for such time as
such neglect or refusal shall continue.

Section 8. V. That when Congress shall require supplies, which are to
be raised by direct taxes, they shall demand from the several states
their respective quotas thereof, giving a reasonable time to each state
to procure and pay the same; and if any state shall refuse, neglect, or
omit to raise and pay the same within such limited time, then Congress
shall have power to assess, levy, and collect the quota of such state,
together with interest for the same, from the time of such delinquency,
upon the inhabitants and estates therein, in such manner as they shall
by law direct; provided that no poll tax be imposed.

Section 8. VI. That no standing army of regular troops shall be raised
or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of both
houses in Congress.

Section 8. VII. That the clause respecting the exclusive legislation
over a district not exceeding ten miles square be qualified by a
proviso that such right of legislation extend only to such regulations
as respect the police and good order thereof.

Section 8. VIII. That each state, respectively, shall have power to
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia thereof,
whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That
the militia shall not be subject to material law, but when in actual
service, in the time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in
the actual service of the United states, shall be subject to such
fines, penalties, and punishments, only, as shall be directed or
inflicted by the laws of its own state: nor shall the militia of any
state be continued in actual service longer than two months, under any
call of Congress, without the consent of the legislature of such state,
or, in their recess, the executive authority thereof.

Section 9. IX. That the clause respecting vessels bound to or from any
one of the states be explained.

Article 3, section 1. X. That Congress establish no other court than
the Supreme Court, except such as shall be necessary for determining
causes of admiralty jurisdiction.

Section 2, paragraph 2. XI. That a proviso be added at the end of the
second clause of the second section of the third article, to the
following effect, viz.: Provided, that such appellate jurisdiction, in
all cases of common-law cognizance, be by a writ of error, and confined
to matters of law only; and that no such writ of error shall be
admitted, except in revenue cases, unless the matter in controversy
exceed the value of three thousand dollars.

Article 6, paragraph 2. XII. That to article 6, clause 2, be added the
following proviso, viz.: Provided always that no treaty, which shall
hereafter be made, shall be deemed or construed to alter or affect any
law of the United States, or of any particular state, until such treaty
shall have been laid before and assented to by the House of
Representatives in Congress." (Elliot)

Marshel likewise opposed the revision of the state constitution of
Pennsylvania. Originally, this document had been very
democratically written, but conservatives wanted revisions. A
convention was called in 1789, through some rather dubious political
methods, which westerners were quick to denounce. To a letter
from Albert Gallatin urging Washington county to boycott the
convention, Marshel replied: "am happy to find that the good people of
your County are not disposed to Elect members for the proposed
Convention. I heartily agree with you that the Measure is
Unconstitutional, Unnecessary, and highly Improper and that the most
prudent step for us at present is the measure proposed by the people of
your County" (Ferguson 102).

Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion took place in western Pennsylvania, beginning in
the fall of 1791 and coming to a climax and end in 1794.
(Although other frontier regions participated in protesting the tax, I
consider only Pennsylvania in this discussion. Certainly,
Pennsylvania was a center for the rebellion, and was the focus of the
military effort to quell the insurgency.)

Map of Washington County, Pennsylvania in early 1780s
"Marshals" (presumably Marshel's 1200 acres) is labeled just northwest of Washington
"Smith's" - the Presbyterian Church of Cross Creek is likewise shown
Map from
History of Washington County, Pennsylvania
by Boyd Crumrine

Western Pennsylvania settlers were rebelling against the whiskey excise
tax that had been passed by the new American government. The
rebellion was then, and remains, extremely controversial. It
incorporates elements of many of the debates of the age, including how
much and what kinds of powers were held by the new federal government
and how that authority could be used and enforced. The
Whiskey Rebellion was one of the first instances in which the federal
government had to exert itself to enforce a law, in this case calling
out the militias to put down the rebellion.

The whiskey excise tax was passed by Congress in March 1791.
The tax was levied primarily to help the federal government recover
from the debts incurred by the American Revolution and the recession
that occurred in its wake. As inflation went up and the
government's currency was devalued, people everywhere were struggling
to make ends meet. This was particularly true for former
soldiers who had been paid primarily in the form of government
paper. Many of these soldiers sold their devalued bonds to
speculators, who began to petition for an absorption of debts by
Congress. The first Congress, led by Alexander Hamilton's
proposals, agreed to try to absorb some of the
debts. However, once absorbed, a form of income had
to be created to pay off the debt. Thus came the whiskey tax.

Whiskey was a popular beverage at a time when much of what was drunk by
children and adults alike was alcoholic. It is made by
fermenting grains such as corn or rye, and gradually distilling the
alcohol into purer and purer forms. This was done in a pot
still over a fire, running the finished product into barrels.
When the process is complete, whiskey is practically clear and very
strong, similar to vodka. At that point, it may be drunk
immediately or aged in casks, a process which darkens it.

Western Pennsylvania farmers, especially those living in the forks of
the Ohio River (near present-day Pittsburgh), were among the most
prodigious producers of whiskey in the country. In part, this
is because of simple economics and geography. Farmers were
blocked from using the Mississippi River to ship crops to market, as it
was still controlled by the Spanish. This meant that they had
to get their crops over the Allegheny Mountains in order to find a
market for them in the east. The cost and the time involved
in getting crops to market was considerable. In order to make a profit,
it was in the best interests of western farmers to grow grains, then
distill them into whiskey. The leftover fermented grains
could be fed to animals that would help to feed a family, and the
distilled whiskey could be taken to market in eastern
Pennsylvania. Since whiskey does not spoil as the grains
would, and since a large quantity of grains could be made into a
relatively small amount of whiskey, the distillation process was key to
the economy of western markets.

While much whiskey was exported from the region, certainly it served a
social purpose as well. In 1786, a surveyor from
Massachusetts visited western Pennsylvania and wrote:

"I
found a number of the neighbors seated in social glee around a heap of
corn. The inspiring juice of rye had enlivened their
imaginations, and given their tongue such an exact balance, that they
moved with the greatest alacrity, while relating scenes of boxing,
wrestling, hunting, &c. At dusk of evening the corn was
finished, and the company retired to the house, where many of them took
such hearty draughts of the generous liquor as quite deprived them of
the use of their limbs. Some quarreled, some sang, and others
laughed; while the whole displayed a scene more diverting than
edifying. At ten o'clock all who could walk went home, but
left three or four round the fire, hugging the whisky bottle, and
arguing very obstinately on religion; at which I left them and went to
bed."

Apparently, the neighbors returned the next day to
continue drinking.

In western Pennsylvania, there were some larger distillers who would
distill whiskey for smaller farmers in exchange for a portion of the
product. However, many small farmers were able to operate
their own stills, some only seasonally and some primarily for their own
use. Given the devaluation of paper currency and the relative
rarity of coin in the western frontier, whiskey could often be used as
a form of currency, since it always had value somewhere. It
was a cornerstone of the economy.

Therefore, when Congress passed the whiskey excise tax, western farmers
were particularly incensed. Many of the western farmers were
veterans of the Revolutionary War, some of the French and Indian
War. They felt betrayed by their new government.
Protests and meetings began almost before the excise tax was
passed. When the tax was passed and as the federal government
tried harder and harder to enforce the law, the tax officers (many of
them local citizens) were physically attacked, tarred and feathered,
and/or had their houses and other property burned.

Attacks continued and became more violent climaxing in the summer of
1794 as the federal government continued to try to enforce the law and
make farmers register their stills. The turning point came
when a federal marshal began delivering processes to those who had
failed to register their stills. Farmers would be expected to
attend a court hearing in eastern Pennsylvania -- at a cost that none
could afford. In western Pennsylvania, some began to discuss
secession. Those who registered their stills or who tried to
remain neutral on the subject were harassed and intimidated.
The western Pennsylvania militias were organized to attack the federal
officials enforcing the tax collection. Several of these men
holed up in Pittsburgh, and were forced out when the country militias
threatened to burn the town. The Pittsburgh militia joined
the others, possibly under duress.

In 1794, the federal government finally sent negotiators to discuss a
possible reconciliation. Even as the negotiations were
underway, militias were being called out in several states to put down
the rebellion. The federal government had a lot to lose in
the face of western rebellion. It was so new that this threat
to its power had to be taken extremely seriously.

Although the negotiations were somewhat successful (mostly because
rebel leaders quickly saw that they had no hope of defending themselves
against a federal army), the federal militias were marched through the
area in 1794. No shots were fired at the militias.
Negotiations had required that all men sign a loyalty oath to the new
government and promise to obey the laws. In return, they
could expect amnesty for their actions. Most men appear to
have signed the pledge. In the end, only a few men were taken
to Philadelphia for trial; only two were found guilty

In the beginning of the Whiskey Rebellion, Marshel appears to have
actively supported the rebellion, through writing and action.
In the summer of 1791, shortly after the excise law was passed, James
Marshel was appointed a representative of Washington County to a larger
meeting of delegates from western Pennsylvania. This
committee passed several resolutions against the whiskey tax which were
published in the Pittsburgh Gazette that fall.
Marshel was also a member and officer of the Democratic Society of the
County of Washington in Pennsylvania, a political and social group
which gathered and wrote a protest letter to President George
Washington in spring 1794.

Brackenridge concludes that James Marshel's opposition to the whiskey
excise tax was a political move to beat out Thomas Ryerson in a House
race. In an earlier election, Ryerson had been opposed to a
state tax and had soundly beat Marshel. Brackenridge thus
concludes that Marshel's opposition to the whiskey excise was an
electioneering move. Certainly, Marshall does appear to have
used the opposition to network with others. Here is
Brackenridge again:

"James Marshall... who doubtless had the same general impressions with
the others, had been at Pittsburgh occasionally, having at that time a
contract with the public for the purchase of horses for the wagons of
the army; had conversed with me on the subject of the excise law; and
finding my sentiments in unison with his, not only with regard to the
excise law, but the funding system in general, expressed a wish that I
would come forward and get myself elected a member from Allegheny
County. I declined it... Marshall excused me, but thought I could have
no objections to assist in drawing up the addresses proposed to the
public or to the representatives in Congress. I had no objections to
that." (Brackenridge 69)

Despite Marshel's opposition to the excise law, he seems to have had
misgivings about the use of violence, at least initially.
Hogeland mentions, "James Marshall... declined to join in the attack"
on General Neville's home at Bower Hill (151). General
John Neville was a local citizen who was registering stills and
collecting taxes. The attacks occurred on the evening after
General Neville had ridden out with the federal marshal to deliver
processes against those who had not registered their stills.
In the notes, Hogeland suggests that rather than a public declaration
against the violence at Bower Hill, Marshel may have simply not shown
up. Given the escalating attacks and intimidation of those
who were seen to be in league with the tax collectors, trying to
register their stills, or remain neutral, Marshel's decision not to
participate would probably have been safest if made privately.

In Slaughter's review of the Whiskey Rebellion, he likewise concludes
that "'leaders' were recruited against their will, although some
quickly developed a passion for the role of demagogue. James
Marshall and David Bradford, later two of the most incendiary favorites
of the crowd, were bluntly told that 'if you do not come forward now
and support us, you shall be treated in the same or a worse way with
the excise officer'" (183). Certainly other prominent
men (notably Brackenridge) who later wrote about the rebellion
indicated that they sometimes felt coerced or intimidated into taking
actions. It is difficult, however, to determine how much of
this later writing was an attempt by the men to exculpate themselves
from a situation in which they seemed to be guilty of treason.

David Bradford, Marshel's business partner, made a speech at Mingo
Creek Church in support of the attack on Neville's house at
Bower Hill within a few days. It appears that James Marshel
may have tacitly agreed with Bradford, for at any rate, he went on with
the next step Bradford took, intercepting and reading the mail from
Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. Ostensibly, the goal of this was
to see who was writing to the federal government and what was being
said. At any rate, what was found was disagreeable (at best)
to those who read it.

Bradford, Marshel, and several other men next signed a letter to
militia commanders which commanded them to muster in Braddock's Field,
near Pittsburgh:

"the post now being in our possession by which certain secrets are
discovered hostile to our interests, it is therefore come to that
crisis that every citizen must express his sentiments, not by his
words, but by his actions. You are then called upon as a
citizen of the western country, to render your personal service, with
as many volunteers as you can raise to rendezvous at your usual place
of meeting..." (Linn 67).

This was clearly an act of rebellion. It is unclear why
Marshel (and Bradford) might have had this change of heart related to
violent protest. Perhaps calling out the militia was not seen
as the radical act that it clearly became. Perhaps the
contents of the read letters was so incendiary as to change their
minds. Perhaps, too, Bradford and Marshel were feeling
external pressures to act. Both Marshel and Bradford
suggested later that week that mustering the militias might not be the
right decision, although Bradford changed his mind yet again, urging
the militias on. James Marshel (says Hogeland, page 169)
found his door tarred and feathered that night, indicating that he
would have to participate in the muster as well. There would
be no backing down.

James Marshel did muster at Braddock's Field. When the
militia leaders debated burning all of Pittsburgh to ferret out the
remaining 'traitors to the cause', he apparently opposed the idea,
along with others, and they prevailed. A group of soldiers
did burn a house and barn, however, for which Marshel and others
drafted an apology. The tax collectors and their
supporters were peacefully exiled from the town.

Following the muster at Braddock's Field and the end of the crisis near
Pittsburgh, a meeting was called to be held August 14th at Parkinson's
Ferry. Delegates were sent from western Pennsylvania, as well
as neighboring counties of Virginia. James Marshel was among
the 226 other men chosen to represent the area (Baldwin). At
the meeting, Marshel spoke out in favor of the principles of the
whiskey rebellion, proposing a series of resolutions, which were
adopted pending revisions.

Marshel's resolutions are summarized in Baldwin:

"The first
resolution, adopting the western view that the county was the vicinage,
characterized the taking of citizens from their vicinages for trial as
a violation of their rights... his [second] resolution called for a
committee of public safety to guard against any invasions of the rights
of the people... The third resolution, which called for yet one more
remonstrance to Congress, was carried. The fourth called for
the formulation of a statement and explanation of the motives that had
actuated the people of the western country in the late unhappy
disturbances... The fifth pledged the West to the support of the laws
save for the excise and the removal of citizens for trial outside their
vicinage" (176-7).

From the list, it appears that
Marshel may still have been walking a relatively moderate line, trying
to avoid armed conflict and violence, while supporting the cause of the
insurrection.

Even as the meeting at Parkinson's Ferry was occurring, negotiators from
the federal government were traveling west to meet with the rebels.
When negotiations commenced with federal representatives, James Marshel
was among the committee of men who participated, as was David
Bradford. Although the western committee and the federal
representatives did reach an agreement among themselves, it was
rejected by the larger group of delegates. This suggests that
although Bradford and Marshel may have been radical in appearance to
the federal government, they were actually less radical than other
neighbors may have been.

Among the men who took the oath of allegiance in Cross Creek on
September 11, 1794, appears the name James Marshel. Thomas,
John, John, and Robert Marshall also are listed as having taken the
oath in Cross Creek in the presence of Commissioners William Rea, Aaron
Lyle, and Thomas Patterson.

In March 1794, at the commencement of the Whiskey Rebellion, James
Marshel was the president of the Democratic Society of Washington
County, which had apparently been newly established that
month. Democratic-Republican Societies, popular
political-social clubs of the time, were intended to defend the
Constitution and promote democracy. Specifically, they tended
to be anti-federalist in nature and to defend the rights of the people
above all. The first action taken by the Democratic
Society of Washington County, one signed by Marshel as president, was
to send a remonstrance to President Washington and to Congress
regarding the Mississippi, demanding that navigation be opened through
negotiations with Spain. As noted above, this would have
provided additional markets for the western farmers, and was addressed
in response to a request from a Kentucky Democratic-Republican
Society. It was, however, narrowly approved by the Washington
Society, passing by a margin of only two votes. (Foner)

Probably Marshel was no longer president of the Democratic Society of
Washington County by mid-April of that year (1794), when the
constitution of the group was published in the Pittsburgh Gazette and
specifically banned those holding "any office of trust or profit" in
the state or federal governments. In June, an anonymous
letter from "Democratus" was published in the Pittsburgh Gazette
decrying this article of the constitution: "They think thereby militia
officers are excluded, and if so they will not encourage the business
at all, but will strive to hinder its progress." (Foner 139)
Democratus also regrets the clause that demands that every court case
be brought to the society prior to being filed in the county
courts. He does, however, generally support the group's
political agenda. It would be interesting to know if Marshel
(a militia officer and an attorney) was the one who penned this letter
or if it was in fact related to his involvement with the society.

It would likewise be interesting to know who an anonymous letter
referred to in its scathing commentary regarding the society.
In a letter to the Pittsburgh Gazette, the letter comments: "that the
members of those different societies, wherever they have appeared, have
had in view their private interest and popularity and not the public's
welfare, that in times of real danger few of them were seen in the
field ready to encounter it; that they are national bullies breathing
war and confusion, at the same time they have neither bravery nor
patience to support themselves under its trials and
hardships." While this commentary could refer to any number
of people, it fits Marshel well; his motives for supporting the Whiskey
Rebellion were questioned by Brackenridge as a political ploy for
winning the election, and he does seem to have avoided violent
confrontations remarkably, given his position as a colonel of the
militia and leader in the rebellion.

At the conclusion of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Democratic Society
found itself publicly attacked as one of the primary sources of
rebellion. In a letter of defense penned by A. Baird, Vice
President, the society stated: "It has been asserted, on the
floor of Congress, in order to prove that we have been instrumental in
fomenting the late insurrection, that some of our members were leaders
in it; we admit that a few of them (not more than seven) in their
individual capacity, were too deeply involved, but, suppose there had
been twenty, is that any reason that the society should be stigmatized
with being fomenters of the rebellion..." (Foner 139)

According to Ferguson, at the end of the Whiskey Rebellion, "James
Marshall was put in an unpleasant situation that curtailed his
political career" (130). Still, he fared better than his law
partner, David Bradford, who was forced to flee down the Mississippi,
and who lived out the rest of his life in Louisiana. Crumrine
adds the following: "Soon after the close of the insurrection
(in September, 1795) he [Marshel] advertised thirteen hundred acres of
patented and improved lands on Cross Creek for sale. This must have
been preparatory to his removing from Cross Creek township to Brooke
County, Va., which he did at about that time... Col. James
Marshel died at his home in Brooke County, Va., in 1829. "Marshel
Hall." his home in this township, is now owned by Thomas and Thomas B.
McCorkle" (728).

Egle writes the following epilogue: "Captain Marshel died March 17, 1829, at Wellsburg,
West Virginia, whither he removed toward the close of the
century. He left descendants in Western
Pennsylvania" (252). One of these descendants was his son,
John: "Their son, John Marshel, was elected sheriff of
Washington County in 1835, served one year, and then resigned to accept
the position of cashier of the Franklin Bank, in Washington, Pa., where
he remained several years." (Crumrine 728).

References

Agnew, Hon. Daniel, LL.D.,
A History of the Region of Pennsylvania
North of the Ohio and West of the Allegheny River, of the Indian
Purchases, and the Running of the Southern, Northern, and Western State
Boundaries. Philadelphia: Kay & Brother, Law
Publishers, Booksellers, and Importers, 1887, reprinted Arno Press,
Inc., 1971.